00:00:18.340 - 00:01:04.170

Uh huh. Uh huh, uh huh, uh huh, uh huh, uh huh, uh huh, uh huh. 30. By its very title, the G A. O calls on Congress to take bold action. That is what is needed, and that is what this legislation provides. The bill before the subcommittee today is Comprehensive Organic Act for the Refuge System designed to accomplish the following in summary.

00:01:04.510 - 00:01:25.960

To set forth explicit environmentally sound purposes for the system as a whole to establish a formal process for determining what secondary decisions are compatible and thus allowable. Require the Fish and Wildlife Service to repair a system wide master plan, as well as conservation Plans for each refuge or group of related refugees.

00:01:26.540 - 00:01:49.550

Require federal agencies with joint or secondary jurisdiction over a refuge to assure that their actions do not harm refuge resources unless permitted by law or necessary for national security. And finally to reaffirm the existing law that permits wildlife. Recreational activities such as hunting, fishing and hiking were found compatible with refuge purposes.

00:01:50.340 - 00:02:16.740

I'd like to emphasize that last additional with refuge purpose. I'd like to emphasize that last traditional recreation currently allowed on many refuges, including hunting, is not to be automatically banned. I hunt. I firmly believe hunting should be allowed in our refuges whenever by objective, scientifically sound data.

00:02:16.750 - 00:02:48.960

There is to show where, when and how hunting can take place without becoming incompatible with the purpose of the individual refuge. My intent is to achieve a balance between traditional recreational activities and the primary purpose. The preservation of wildlife. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, for providing the opportunity to testify today unless 8 23 the National Wildlife Refuge System Management and Policy Act.

00:02:49.540 - 00:03:07.750

I have worked on National Wildlife Refuge matters for over 19 years, and I'm pleased to testify today on behalf of Secretary Bruce Babbitt. The subcommittee is to be commended for its high level of interest in the National Wildlife Refuge system. I can assure you that the protective management of this spectacular wildlife conservation system is a high priority of this administration.

00:03:08.440 - 00:03:34.060

This administration supports the concept of organic legislation, the refuge system and supports the enactment of 8 23 two generations. That's also what's missing in current law. There is no statement indicating to the Secretary of Interior what the expectation is from Congress regarding the long term management and care of the National Wildlife Refuge system for the benefit of future generations.

00:03:34.440 - 00:03:56.660

I think this bill provides that right. There are just two examples. There's no statement of purpose. Kidding. What House for preserving biodiversity was inappropriate, Mr Chairman, Hopefully now, with an administration more favorable to the prudent stewardship that s 8 23 represents, we'll be able to move forward on this bill which is so vital to the conservation of this nation's federal wildlife habitat.

00:03:57.240 - 00:04:39.270

Thank you. Thank you, Doctor. We have been such secondary uses. Unfortunately, many of these activities are severely harming the wildlife that the refuge system was designed to protect. In 1989 study by the General Accounting Office found activities considered by refuge managers themselves to be harmful to wildlife occurred on 59% of our refuges, even though many of those uses were defined as compatible under existing law on clean water, fisheries and wildlife.

00:04:39.270 - 00:05:00.000

This is not only my first meeting as chair of the subcommittee. This is the first meeting of this subcommittee refuge Reform Coalition on S A 23. I am vice President for wildlife and habitat protection for the Humane Society of the United Administration and sees the problems of refugees to protect.

00:05:00.000 - 00:05:41.580

And there you have vital to our nation's fishing long what the National Wildlife Refuge system should be. And what are the logical tenants of this future develop? Call the meeting to order. This is a meeting of the Senate Committee on Environment Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Water, Fisheries and Wildlife.

00:05:41.580 - 00:06:06.670

This is not only my first meeting as chair of the subcommittee. This is the first meeting of this subcommittee as it is newly established under the reorganization of the Environment and Public Works Committee by its chair, Senator Max Baucus. Uh, at this point, I would like to make a sad announcement that Senator Baucus could not be with us today because of the passage of his father.

00:06:06.680 - 00:06:27.860

Uh, and we send a our deepest regrets and sympathy to the senator on that sad occasion and wish the best to him and to his family. Uh, it is especially disappointing that the Senator Baucus could not be here as this is is the subject of this meeting.

00:06:28.340 - 00:06:46.620

The National Wildlife Refuge System Management Policy Act of 1993 has been a subject in which he has had a special personal interest. I look forward to working with him and other members of the committee closely as we move through the process of hearing and further consideration of this legislation.

00:06:48.720 - 00:07:24.270

In 19 oh three, President Theodore Roosevelt established the first National Wildlife Refuge on a tiny island, Pelican Island, in Florida's Indian River, in the east central section of our state. He sought to protect brown pelicans, egrets, herons and other impressive waiting birds from people who were seeking to kill the birds for their plumes and for the feathered hats that with the fashion of that day for 100 years, our country's wildlife refuge system has grown.

00:07:24.280 - 00:07:49.750

It now has nearly 500 refuges, covering over 91 million acres in all 50 states. This loose network of refuges provides essential habitat to more than 700 species of birds, more than 1000 mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and an even greater variety of fish and plants. Many of these species are listed as endangered or threatened.

00:07:50.640 - 00:08:29.980

Our wildlife refugees comprise one of the largest public land systems managed by the federal government. Yet, unlike the Forest Service, the Park Service, the bureau of land management lands. It is the only federal land system managed primarily for the benefit of wildlife and habitat. Nevertheless, in spite of this primary purpose for the protection of wildlife and habitat under two laws passed in the 19 sixties, recreational and other secondary uses are allowed on refuges so long as they are compatible with the refugees.

00:08:29.990 - 00:09:35.760

Primary purpose. As a result, at least one secondary use occurs on nearly every refuge, and more than 70% of our refuges have at least seven such secondary uses. Unfortunately, many of these activities are severely harming the wildlife that the refuge system was designed to protect. In 1989 study by the General Accounting Office found activities considered by refuge managers themselves to be harmful to wildlife occurred on 59% of our refuges, even though many of those uses were defined as compatible under existing law, power boating, mining, military air exercises, off road vehicles and air boating or the most frequently listed harmful uses oil and gas drilling, timbering, grazing, farming, commercial fishing, hunting, trapping, even hiking in some cases were also found in specific instances to be harming wildlife or disturbing habitat or breeding.

00:09:36.800 - 00:09:59.560

A follow up study by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service found virtually the same thing. 63% of the refugees Harvard one or more harmful activities. The obvious question. If the current law only permits compatible activities, how have we allowed actually harmful activities on a majority of our refugees?

00:10:00.240 - 00:10:26.960

The G A O found two primary causes. First, the Fish and Wildlife Service often is forced to give in to intense political and economic pressure. Refuge managers have become susceptible to such pressure, in part because the laws passed in the sixties governing refuges do not adequately define what the purposes of the refuges are or how to determine whether proposed use is compatible with those purposes.

00:10:27.540 - 00:11:13.560

Thus, the G A o found refuge managers, often considering nonbiological factors in evaluating whether and allowed secondary use was compatible. Furthermore, the G A o discovered that compatibility decisions are often made without adequate public input or written records. The problem is then compounded by the services failure to periodically re evaluate those uses which have been allowed the G A O found the second major factor behind these harmful activities involved refuges that share jurisdiction with other federal agencies on many refuges and other federal agency shares a navigable waterway or has the right to use land and airspace for military exercises.

00:11:14.040 - 00:11:44.300

Thus, by law, such harmful activities is boating or military overflights cannot be prevented, and the service often lacks leverage to limit the harm which these activities cause. The Department of Defense is the predominant federal entity with secondary jurisdiction. The department was invited to testify, but their newly appointed lead environmental official, the deputy undersecretary of defense for environmental security, wrote the subcommittee to say that she did not have adequate time to prepare for this hearing.

00:11:44.310 - 00:12:08.970

She expressed concern about the provisions, the bill that would affect refuges with joint jurisdiction and requested that the hearing record remain open pending submission of written testimony by June 30. By its very title, the G A. O calls on Congress to take bold action. That is what is needed, and that is what this legislation provides.

00:12:08.980 - 00:12:52.550

The bill before the subcommittee today is comprehensive organic act for the Refuge system designed to accomplish the following in summary, to set forth explicit environmentally sound purposes for the system as a whole to establish a formal process for determining what secondary decisions are compatible and thus allowable, require the Fish and Wildlife Service to repair a system wide master plan, as well as conservation Plans for each refuge or group of related refugees require federal agencies with joint or secondary jurisdiction over a refuge to assure that their actions do not harm refuge resources unless permitted by law or necessary for national security.

00:12:53.040 - 00:13:24.220

And finally to reaffirm the existing law that permits wildlife. Recreational activities such as hunting, fishing and hiking were found compatible with refuge purposes. I'd like to emphasize that last point. Traditional recreation currently allowed on many refuges, including hunting, is not to be automatically banned. I hunt and I firmly believe hunting should be allowed in our refuges whenever by objective, scientifically sound data.

00:13:24.230 - 00:13:52.650

There is to show where, when and how hunting can take place without becoming incompatible with the purpose of the individual refuge. My intent is to achieve a balance between traditional recreational activities and the primary purpose, the preservation of wildlife. I'm pleased to report that this legislation has received broad support, some of which will be expressed by our witnesses later this morning.

00:13:54.240 - 00:14:14.040

This testimony will indicate the threats to our environment are all around us seem to be growing daily through protection and improvement of the National Wildlife Refuge system is but one part of the needed response. It is a critical component. Our wildlife refuge system is one of our nation's treasures.

00:14:14.440 - 00:14:37.960

In large part, it has been a great success story protecting species from coast to coast. But now the refuge system and its mission are threatened. President Theodore Roosevelt challenged our sense of stewardship when he said, there are no words that can tell the hidden spirit of the wilderness that can reveal its mystery.

00:14:38.280 - 00:15:22.560

It's melancholy, its charm. The nation behaves well if it treats the national resources as assets, which it must turn over to the next generation increased and not impaired in value. That is our task today, with the indulgence of the witnesses. I would like to ask if we could show a broadcast, which was presented by CBS News in 1991 outlining the status of the national refuge system as they found it on in the spring of that year, a circumstance which I think is consistent with its current condition today.

00:15:29.540 - 00:16:02.060

Okay, think about 19 minutes together. The Sunday we go. Yeah, part of the fire of the nation. Well, this morning begin managed to achieve not with pride as France. Okay. Okay. Started this morning. Holy prophet Lectures in the world. Yeah, including this. Why not thinking much tonight?

00:16:02.940 - 00:16:32.460

Stop across and said for the protection of what? But it is speaking. We're now Jeffrey. Later on Sunday morning, we'll sit down. Can recreational active market. He's splendid sight. Hey, Miles last Uh huh. Actually extremely close to depend on birthday present. But it's unfortunately for the heart.

00:16:33.240 - 00:17:21.090

Presently, Months gave us. Yeah, these are published four. What? Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Rose. The system of national wild she launched almost 90 years ago. Grown people express effective technology stretches from Alaska. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Two cm. Some 90 million liters. You're not.

00:17:21.840 - 00:18:01.960

Yeah. Set aside. Hey. Yes. Uh huh. Treasures that make kind of a secret. Yeah. Wyoming grandchildren. And what's up by President Bush? That's sure. Represents What was? Yeah, bench tank commands. He had wild resources to set them aside. The throne Intrinsic factor. Those reasons, preacher the most while the enemy of what?

00:18:02.840 - 00:19:07.180

When? Mhm. Yeah, Hey, Mike. Great, Because they've been held modest or Internet along Florida's east coast. And that's it. Absolutely. Okay. 100. Thank you. Wow. Understand, Senator Bob. Laura. Order direction, system alarm. But the money. Yeah. Mhm Trump. Right, Carl. System complex. We're doing Exploitation of the refugees increased sharply during the Reagan years.

00:19:07.420 - 00:19:55.460

Everything control gas, drilling cattle graze with recreational in the world. Wildlife has been yes, even killed by pollution opening people. Threat was right. Right? Wildlife service. Which? Yeah, guests, regulations. All right. But invite wildlife groups. Right backing legislate to do just that. Legislation established the first stand.

00:19:56.840 - 00:20:46.270

He says last Wednesday in March, right mind by an entire all that would give them wildlife service. Made her a lot to control. What goes on? Say the opponent resigns. Logical. That is and was coming up, you know, considering mhm four. Okay, bye. This is yes, right.

00:20:53.740 - 00:21:23.430

Rodger Schlickeisen Mhm and its wildlife Quarter of the Brambilla career this year defenders obtained by forcing the information Yes, efficient, wild neutral report showing serious and fixed. Yes, you must, For example, in Arizona bombing Range Rover Line Professor Creator Patridge that you made your problem when Darwin with this theory.

00:21:23.440 - 00:21:51.730

This is vital of the fittest. He did not have in mind Brains vs Biologics from morning. This is right issue. Wildlife Director Charles, The things that grand Villas it's my feeling. Yeah, have the authorities mhm that we we have expertise. Okay, advising. But when you work out, I wrote what?

00:21:51.730 - 00:23:00.270

We take this system instead. And so I worry about balance. Yeah, that's wildlife. Says it is Mhm. Change the way those combined. Yeah. Uh huh. This is the great white parents while Trump Key West Mark? Uh huh, Yeah, mhm here, too. The peace and quiet refugees consistence and covered I scattered over to sure they're miles open world.

00:23:01.040 - 00:23:42.670

Yeah. What's that? Yeah, with the sanction, birds has become a mecca for wars. There's only service changes to go. All right, 100%? Yes. Well, yeah. Outside force. What great white heron breath. He was watched with the law. Islands have been invaded by water sports and food is created during by cutting down the very trees And very true.

00:23:44.240 - 00:24:34.550

Okay, No. Yeah, follow the group, but sure, three orders that Chama waiting, but the hair my soul, lot of ground quarters almost every week. Conspicuous? Yes, It's been making fun. Mhm man further along court and get away from the north. These they're seen only mhm. Mhm, Yeah.

00:24:39.740 - 00:25:11.850

What? Hers. Habitat. Everything Damn straight staffed by all. All right, Mom. For me? Yes. He has hundreds of species of birds to look at, but its most in danger charges magnificent crane to arrive here. Each bottle once nearly their comeback in recent years, is one of the great environmental success.

00:25:17.540 - 00:25:48.460

The busy intercoastal waterway rocked alongside Karan. The emotional shipping and pleasure boats have every right to be eaten. Tom State, these huge part toxic car does speaking trains, testing grounds, right? For those, it's breaking. Opens in 10,000 stuff. It's a chemical soup going in. Could even approach to start cleaning.

00:25:49.140 - 00:26:26.450

Does that carry gases? Gasses alone would just wipe out all the birds. Okay, Okay. Various top cat solution. Check. Decide. That was about this election. Okay. Been on Allentown. Million problem taking references. Yeah, there is fine. Agent. He's from Alaska. Came to the capital Bush Mr.

00:26:27.740 - 00:27:16.270

To organize. Okay. Article wildlife, which is fast hurt, right? It is quite while versus quickly, isn't that? Yeah, our first Panelist is Mr Don Barry, the acting assistant secretary of for Fish and Wildlife and parks of the Department of Interior Bear. We appreciate very much your joining us today and look forward to your remarks on behalf of the department.

00:27:17.140 - 00:27:31.950

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, for providing the opportunity to testify today and s 8 23 the National Wildlife Refuge System Management and Policy Act. I have worked on National Wildlife Refuge matters for over 19 years, and I'm pleased to testify today on behalf of Secretary Bruce Babbitt.

00:27:33.040 - 00:27:51.460

The subcommittee is to be commended for its high level of interest in the National Wildlife Refuge system. I can assure you that the protective management of this spectacular wildlife conservation system is a high priority of this administration. This administration supports the concept of organic legislation, the refuge system, and supports the enactment of s 8 23.

00:27:52.340 - 00:28:10.450

We believe that it's 8 23 supplements the excellent foundation laid down in 1966 by Congressman John Dingell in the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. Thus, we view this bill as supplementary to rather than an opposition to the intent of the original 1966 or Refuge System act.

00:28:10.940 - 00:28:27.460

We do believe, however, that some amendments are necessary to improve the effectiveness of your bill and look forward to working with you in the subcommittee staff to making adjustments to this legislation. The National Wildlife Refuge system faces many difficult challenges and exciting opportunities as we approach its 1/100 anniversary.

00:28:28.040 - 00:28:49.760

When added to the enormous conservation effort of state fish and wildlife agencies across this country, the continuing growth of the refuge system makes a major contribution to the achievement of our fish and wildlife conservation goals for this country. Expansion of the refuge system has come at a price, however, or it has taxed to the limit of the taxed to the limit the ability of refuge managers to fulfill their stewardship responsibilities.

00:28:50.240 - 00:29:06.350

Based on almost two decades of visits to national wildlife refuges. I can assure this committee that there is no such thing as a lazy or indifferent wildlife refuge manager, frequently rising before dawn and toiling well into the night. These people always humble and inspire me with their dedication to conservation.

00:29:07.340 - 00:29:32.560

Ever expanding statutory mandates and surrounding land use conflicts present additional challenges for overworked refuge staffs. Nevertheless, a significant opportunity exists for refugees and refuge managers to work cooperatively with the states to play a pivotal role in the conservation of this nation's fish and wildlife resources. We're also putting increased emphasis and more money into the Challenge cost share program to encourage private and nonprofit financial partnerships to enhance efficient wildlife resources on refugees.

00:29:33.540 - 00:29:49.230

Let me highlight four themes that this administration believes should be kept in mind as you consider refugee legislation. First is the need to broaden the mission of the refuge system. Second is the need to get back to basics and wildlife refuge management by ensuring that fish and wildlife conservation comes first within refuges.

00:29:49.740 - 00:30:06.690

The third is a need for a greater effort to engage the American public and caring about the management and well being of the refuge system. And fourth is a practical need to keep refuge. Legislation streamline and lean. It's a compound rather than alleviate refuge management problems with regard to broadening the refuge refuge systems mission.

00:30:07.020 - 00:30:27.670

This administration recognizes the historic roots of the refuge system line migratory bird conservation, and we expect migratory birds remain an important dominant focus of the refuge system. But mindful and supportive of this rich heritage. We also believe that it's essential the mission of the system to be dynamic and responsive to the emerging environmental challenges confronting this nation.

00:30:28.340 - 00:30:57.960

Thus, the refuge system of the future should play an expanded role in the conservation of this nation's biological diversity and in providing environmental education for the American people were consistent with the primary conservation purposes of individual refuges. The refuge system can and should play a leadership role in recovery efforts for endangered and threatened Canada species, and the system can also play an emerging role in ecosystem management initiatives to conserve biological diversity and serve as an important focal point for compatible wildlife oriented conservation, education and recreation.

00:30:59.240 - 00:31:23.660

Our second area of emphasis concerns the need to put wildlife conservation first in the management of the refuge system. The Legislative history of the Original 1966 Refuge Administration Act urged that extreme caution be used in allowing activities to take place on national wildlife refuges. The compatibility test was intended to be the first line of defense against activities that might conflict with the primary purposes for which these refugees were established.

00:31:24.240 - 00:31:43.270

Over time, however, administrative policies or lack of focus have eroded this protective shield, allowing incompatible activities to gain entrench footholds within various wildlife refuges. Included in this list of activities are a variety of conflicting economic uses and non wildlife oriented recreational activities, which are proven difficult to terminate once once established.

00:31:43.840 - 00:31:58.610

This dilemma has highlighted the need to make the compatibility process more rigorous and to refocus our priorities where they belong on the fish and wildlife resources that these refuges were originally established to protect. Our third point concerns the limited awareness and appreciation of the refuge system by the American people.

00:31:59.140 - 00:32:17.960

Regrettably, the refuge system is this nation's best kept secret. A stealth conservation system, if you will meaningful public involvement in the development of individual ref refuge plans, has been the exception rather than the rule. We must elevate the awareness of the refuge system and engage the public in an active dialogue about the future of national wildlife refuges in this country.

00:32:18.440 - 00:32:32.770

These are public lands. It deserves the very best support the public can contribute. Our fourth point reflects the practical need to keep the management of a complex system as simple and direct as possible. Well intentioned but unworkable procedural requirements will hurt refuge management, not help it.

00:32:33.240 - 00:32:50.240

We are confident that you will be able to strike a careful balance between accountability and workability. The refuge system lacks organic legislation that statutorily defines the purposes of the system. S A 23 seeks to correct that problem. This bill also addresses the management of secondary uses and the need for comprehensive planning.

00:32:51.060 - 00:33:06.360

Today, I would like to address my general comments to these three primary sections of the bill refuge, system, purposes, compatibility and planning with regard to the refuge system purposes. We believe that this is one of the most important parts of this bill because it fills a critical gap in current refuge law.

00:33:06.940 - 00:33:37.920

But we generally endorse section for statement of purpose is we have a few constructive suggestions to offer. First, we are concerned that Section four could be interpreted as prohibiting the continued management of lands and wildlife populations within wildlife refuge boundaries. This section should acknowledge that while life conservation programs and refuges run the gamut from managed habitats and populations to naturally diverse and unmanaged populations, and that the refuge system must be broad enough to accommodate both approaches Moreover, we suggest adding wildlife refuge.

00:33:38.020 - 00:34:02.560

Wildlife oriented environmental education is the purpose of the refuge system, provided that educational efforts are secondary to and consistent with the primary conservation purposes of the system and the individual affected refuge. Apart from those changes, we would note our strong support for the provision in section for stating that the original purposes of a refuge will prevail if there's a conflict between those purposes and refuge system purposes.

00:34:03.440 - 00:34:26.440

Section five deals with one of the most difficult issues in refuge management compatibility. As you know, Mr Chairman, after the 1989 jail report on harmful uses occurring, a National Wildlife refuge is the service developed its own survey to better define the scope of the problem. This administration is committed to eliminating incompatible uses as quickly as possible and is reviewing what needs to be done to finish the task provides guidance to refuge.

00:34:26.440 - 00:34:44.910

Managers relating to compatibility is being developed and will be published in the Federal Register for public comment. The service has also developed and implemented a new training course and compatibility for refuge Managers have entered into a new cooperative agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration relating to overflights, and it's attempting to develop an accurate database to track the status of all problem uses.

00:34:45.340 - 00:35:02.960

The service is developing new methods to document costs to administer, administer refugees, is and is compiling reference materials to assist refuge managers and determination of compatibility. While the administration supports many of the provisions in Section five as it relates to the compatibility process, other provisions in this section are troubling and should be amended.

00:35:03.440 - 00:35:21.060

For example, we recommend that Section five be amended to make clear that compatibility decisions may take into account a refugee managers best professional judgment in addition to the best scientific information. As a general matter, we would urge the subcommittee to consider ways to streamline and simplify this section and are willing to work with you towards this end.

00:35:21.440 - 00:35:36.660

Whatever balance is struck on compatibility, it should be straightforward and workable. Another concern of official eyes services the likelihood that the compatibility section of S 8 23 would fall short of correcting some of the most troubling secondary uses, namely those outside the limits of service jurisdiction and authority.

00:35:37.140 - 00:35:55.060

We realize that issues such as these are complicated and are not easily resolved, obviously, the resolution require close coordination with other agencies, and we look forward to working with the subcommittee and these other affected agencies trying to dress these sorts of jurisdictional problems. Finally, Section six of the proposed legislation sets forth various provisions relating to refuge planning.

00:35:55.640 - 00:36:14.250

We're in agreement with US 8 23 regarding the need for expanded refuge management planning and improved guidance currently be developed by the official on service. Attempts to address many of the planning goals reflected in your bill, as you are aware of the service is currently in the midst of a public comment period on the draft plan in the I s on the refuge system entitled Refuge 2000 and three.

00:36:14.630 - 00:36:32.060

As was the case with Section five, we would again urge the subcommittee to look for ways to streamline the planning procedures and criteria set forth in Section six. For example, once Refuge 2000 and three is substantially revised and finalized, it could serve as the initial comprehensive plan for the refugee system required under Section six.

00:36:32.830 - 00:36:51.160

Furthermore, it's important to recognize that a considerable amount of planning has already been completed for individual refuges, although it is uneven in terms of scope and content. It is not clear under the proposed legislation how existing refuge plans, some of which may not address all of the criteria or elements contained in the planning section of 8 23 are to be treated after enactment of this bill.

00:36:51.830 - 00:37:08.070

Planning is a critical but very expensive part of our land management responsibility. We think that, to the extent possible refuge planning, the refuge planning process being developed by the service should be integrated into the requirements of section six. Opportunities for public involvement must be expanded wherever feasible in the planning process.

00:37:08.080 - 00:37:28.840

For example, any existing refuge plan, which was finalized without active public involvement, should go back out for public review and comment again. We look forward to working with the subcommittee to perfect the planning provisions of this bill. One final point worth mentioning applies to all of the provisions in S A 23 that would result in additional responsibilities and tasks to be undertaken by refuge system personnel.

00:37:29.430 - 00:37:45.010

It is important for us to remember the costs in time and funding attributable to these provisions. Refuge system is already challenged by an enormous operational and maintenance backlog, while the system by itself cannot save America's biological diversity. It can make a very significant contribution to this cause.

00:37:45.200 - 00:38:00.940

It has adequate resources to accomplish this mission. We must all work together to make this happen again. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your interest in the refuge system and your commitment to the wise management. The nation's rich natural heritage. Look forward to working with you on this bill, and I am pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

00:38:01.040 - 00:38:29.640

Thank you very much, Mr Barry, For your very fine statement, we've been joined by Senator Faircloth. Senator, do you have an opening statement? It's a basic point of demarcation. There are those who would say that within the current law, the administration can correct the problems that was stated on the film by, uh, Mr Turner, previous head of the wildlife service.

00:38:29.670 - 00:38:52.840

Um others would say that changes in the law are necessary in order to overcome the increasing number of not only incompatible but harmful uses that have come into the refuge system. Ah, what would be you're feeling as to the relative ability of these problems to be dealt with administratively or to what extent changes in law required.

00:38:53.320 - 00:39:28.480

Well, I think clearly a lot can be done administratively, and we're in the process of following up on the excellent start that John Turner, um, initiated to eliminate incompatible activities within the refuge system. I mean, there is a fair amount of administrative discretion that we currently have at the Department of the Interior, and we're trying to exercise that, um, to the best that we can in order to take care of these incompatible activities with regard to your question, Senator, the current laws, the actual statutes dealing with refuge management, uh, flow from two primary statutes, the 1962 Refuge Recreation Act.

00:39:28.580 - 00:39:55.630

And then, more importantly, the 1966 Refuge System Administration Act. The Refuge 2000 and three document that you referred to is a sort of a comprehensive planning document being prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service, which is sort of like a programmatic environmental impact. Statements trying to provide a broad overview for the refuge system is trying to provide a series of alternatives for management to the public to generate public comment to provide guidance to the official law service.

00:39:55.630 - 00:40:15.740

As to how the refuge system in its entirety should be managed based on the statutory authority. Those two earlier statutes that I mentioned to you refuge administration act in the refuge, recreation at in terms of what this statute could add, Mr Chairman, In addition to existing law, one good example of that would be a statement of purpose is for the refuge system.

00:40:16.610 - 00:40:36.140

Currently, there is no statement of purpose is, um, indicating or providing guidance as to what the the purposes of this enormous system is we have. We're now approaching, I think, close to 495 national wildlife refuges. They have been established since 19 oh, three from a variety of means through a variety of for a variety of purposes.

00:40:36.610 - 00:40:51.740

And yet there is no common theme that currently is out there that you can point to which states what the overall goal of this system the mission of this system is, um, I had personal experience back when I worked at the Interior Department as to how this can cause certain problems to the refuge system.

00:40:52.210 - 00:41:13.810

Back in the mid eighties, we had considerable problem with selenium contamination, some of the wildlife refuges in California and during the debates, um, over what to do with the selenium contamination problem. The lack of purpose is for the system, and the lack of sort of obligations or responsibilities on the part of the secretary of interior for the management and the well being of the refuge system became glaringly apparent.

00:41:13.950 - 00:41:30.240

There were some who argued in the department that the secretary had no obligation whatsoever to exercise his administrative discretionary authorities in a manner designed to keep a national wildlife refuge in business. And they were arguing that as secretary could basically turn his back on a wildlife refuge if he so chose and walk away from it entirely.

00:41:30.990 - 00:41:50.700

Now the National Park Service, 1978 gained an amendment to their Park Service Organic Act, which stated what the obligations and responsibilities of the secretary of the interior were for the long term benefit in the management of the national park system for long term benefit of the American people for future generations.

00:41:50.710 - 00:42:08.870

That's also what's missing in current law. There is no statement indicating to the secretary of Interior what the expectation is from Congress regarding the long term management and care of the National Wildlife Refuge system for the benefit of future generations. I think this bill provides that so right there are just two examples.

00:42:08.870 - 00:42:30.270

There's no statement of purpose is indicating what the overall goal of this system is. And there's a lack of responsibility or directions to the secretary of Interior as to how that person should be managing the refuge system for the benefit of future generations. And current law doesn't provide either of those Mr Berry relative to the 2003 report.

00:42:30.270 - 00:42:57.180

When do you anticipate that that will be, uh, available? The public comment period ends June 15th. There has been extensive public discussion. There were a large number of public hearings held. I'm not sure, Rob Rob Shallenberger is the chief of division refugees sitting behind me. I'm not sure whether you have a current tally on the number of comments we've received over 7000 comments.

00:42:58.020 - 00:43:14.810

Our goal is to, um, get a finalized refuge 2003 out on the street as soon as we can. It will be somewhat difficult to figure out what the final timetable would actually look like until we have a chance to take a look at the comments that have come in.

00:43:15.200 - 00:43:43.570

Um, there have been suggestions that the range of alternatives, um, could have been somewhat different. We just need to assess the nature of the comments, but I can at least make you the commitment that our goal is to complete that document as soon as possible. I think the original planning target date was for final publication sometime next, Um, next spring, by the end of the calendar year, whether we'll be able to, uh, stated that target.

00:43:43.580 - 00:44:18.220

You know, it's too early to tell right now until we had a chance to assess the public comments you touched on another of the fundamental issues raised by this legislation. And that is whether the National Wildlife Refuge system is in fact, intended to be a system or a series of relatively independent, autonomous, discreet, uh units, each of which, with its own special history purposes, rationale for federal, uh, involvement.

00:44:18.890 - 00:44:47.390

Uh huh. I would assume that one of the reasons that now, 90 years after the first refuge was established that there is yet to be an organic law has been because of a sense that it was not an organic, uh, system. What is your feeling as to why we should begin to look at the 490 plus refuges as part of a system as opposed to, uh, looking at them, uh, independently.

00:44:47.610 - 00:45:02.920

But I think there clearly are some common themes that emerge from all of these areas, despite the fact that they have had different sources of authority, has been established in different means over the years. The primary one is the conservation of this nation's wildlife wildlife heritage.

00:45:03.390 - 00:45:29.310

That is a common theme, which unites all of the units of the system. It's the world's largest wildlife conservation preserve system on this planet, and even though they may range from intensively managed migratory waterfall refuges to a refugee as spectacular as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the common theme behind all of these is the preservation and conservation of the wildlife resources of this nation.

00:45:29.790 - 00:45:45.100

I think it obviously needs to be viewed in context. The refuge system by itself is not gonna accomplish that mission. The state Fish and Wildlife agencies, with their conservation programs, are doing an enormous, um, job in support of this task of conserving the nation's wildlife resources.

00:45:45.100 - 00:46:11.130

But I think clearly there is a need for viewing these units as a system. And I think they provide a cohesive theme that highlights the fact that we need to work more cooperatively and more aggressively to save this nation's wildlife resources my time is or secondary jurisdiction, um, situations with other agencies and to go back and to review some of those documents.

00:46:11.160 - 00:46:32.670

One of the things that I noticed when I worked as an attorney for the Interior Department, um, for the official line service for a number of years was that in a number of these cooperative agreement refuges, especially mitigation refuges, where the Corps of Engineers of the Bureau of Reclamation had established a wildlife refugees mitigation for a project and then turned the management of that over to the U.

00:46:32.670 - 00:46:54.480

S. Fish Wallace service sometimes the terms and conditions that the um, primary agency, the core the bureau had some of the restrictions are some limitations that they had attached to the cooperative agreement with official office service. Establishing that area as a refuge seemed to go beyond what they needed to retain in order to achieve their primary objectives for flood control or navigation.

00:46:54.480 - 00:47:16.990

There were some instances, at least one in particular. I can think of out West where they had reserved additional management prerogatives above and beyond which you would have needed for managing a water resource project. And there were times when the exercises some of those authorities actually, um, resulted in some harmful activities occurring to the wildlife resources on that refuge.

00:47:17.680 - 00:47:40.390

Um, so I mentioned that as an example, I think it would be probably worthwhile for the service to go back. Take a look at the terms, the original terms of some of the cooperative agreement, a cooperative agreement establishing some of these refugees, um, to determine whether or not, um, some of the restrictions or limitations which are placed in their ability to manage those areas really make sense today and are really necessary.

00:47:40.400 - 00:48:09.510

I think it would be helpful and useful to have another good hard look at some of those documents. Senator, I was impressed that several points in your prepared statement you emphasized the importance of education as a function of the refugees. Could you describe what is the current pattern of the use of refuges for educational purposes and what modifications from that current pattern would you like to see occur.

00:48:10.240 - 00:48:27.900

I'm gonna ask Rob Schallenberger, the chief the division refuges, to describe for you the current state of affairs with environmental education within refugees. Let me just make one general comment, Um, and then this gets back towards looking down, looking to the next century in terms of what refuges can contribute to the American public.

00:48:28.570 - 00:48:47.680

Um, American people are looking for wholesome recreational opportunities, things that they can engage their families with. I think the American public is immensely thirsty for environmental education. The popularity on T v of of a lot of the nature shows and that shows that I think wildlife refuges can really engage.

00:48:47.680 - 00:49:40.790

The American public program ranges from very structured environmental education activities involving schoolroom school classroom kinds of conditions where students are actually brought out in buses with their teachers and put through environmental education curriculum. Our policy in that regard is to provide an opportunity for teachers and teach the teachers so they can so we can expand the participation in that activity and in some of our are best refuges for environmental education, includes San Francisco Bay, Minnesota Valley, John Heinz, some of the other urban refugees that attract several 100 students a month, and it ranges all the way in the other to the other direction from unstructured programs where visitors are able to learn through the process, sometimes unknowingly, by being exposed to interpretive signing and nature trails, publications and so on.

00:49:41.270 - 00:50:36.680

And it's encouraged on every refuge where we have the funds to accomplish it. Do you have any of your refuges that have facilities similar to the Yosemite Institute facilities at Yosemite National Park, where people come for Ah, a essentially a residential experience in the refuge? After I'm aware of Mr Berry near the conclusion of your uh, written statement, you indicated a desire to look at the planning procedures that were outlined in Section five, particularly so that they could take advantage of some of the things that are currently underway, such as Refuge 2003.

00:50:37.260 - 00:51:09.600

Do you have any further comments as to how the work that you that you have done that's underway could be integrated into the planning requirements that would be imposed if this s 8 23 would have come along? We don't have a template to offer you right now, and I think what we're suggesting is that we're more than willing to sit down and to work with your staff to have Rob and his staff explain the current planning process that is underway.

00:51:09.600 - 00:51:28.600

They're in the process of developing a new revised chapter for the refuge manual on planning, which will provide new guidance to the refuge managers and how comprehensive planning should be undertaken on refugees. And I think the key point is that we should try and avoid having to send the whole process back to back.

00:51:28.600 - 00:51:50.490

To start. There are at least 60 comprehensive master plans that have been completed in the refuge system to date. Um, I'm sure the majority of those were done with with extensive opportunities for public comment. There fairly comprehensive documents. Other parts of the planning system, though to date have had sort of more of a mixed track record.

00:51:50.860 - 00:52:07.140

I'm planning. I think what I'd like to do is to just offer to have Rob come up, meet with your staff, explain where we're going in our planning chapter or the refuge manual, and give you a sense of how that, um, squares with what you currently have in your bill.

00:52:07.140 - 00:52:47.370

I think that would probably be the most productive way of of of working with you on that, sir. Further questions, Mr. Chairman, I have no further hands on experience. I've had the good fortune of spending a number of days working at wildlife refuges and, uh, with those experiences which gave me a better, sharper understanding of some of both, uh, tremendous contributions that the refugees were making, Uh, and some of the threats that face their ability to make those contributions in the future, which combined to my sponsorship of this legislation.

00:52:47.370 - 00:53:10.940

And I look forward to taking advantage of of your and and others, including members of this committee, personal experience with the refuge system and our understanding and prescribing, uh, the best course of action for the future of this great American system. Well, I especially look forward to, uh, taking up on an invitation to look at some of the difficult refuge management problems in your state.

00:53:10.940 - 00:53:35.590

Perhaps maybe in December January. It's not bad in July or August either. Thank you very much, Mr Barry. Within the government, plus an extensive background in the overall Policy Development Administration of US Public lands and Natural resources statement of policy or philosophy as to what the National Wildlife Refuge system should be.

00:53:36.140 - 00:56:14.760

And what are the logical tenants of its future development. Recently Governor to the Humane Society of the United States and the Wildlife Refuge Reform Coalition on S. A. 23 I am vice president for wildlife and habitat protection for the Humane Society of the United States, and I'm a professional wildlife biologist with extensive experience regarding wildlife refuges.

00:56:14.770 - 00:56:37.450

For example, from 1977 to 78 I was a member of the Department of Interior's Wildlife Refuge Study Task Force. I have brought lawsuits to end incompatible uses on refuges such as water skiing, and have worked with wildlife refuges on the West Coast to alleviate problems between predators and endangered species.

00:56:38.430 - 00:57:03.040

The Humane Society of the United States or the HSUS, as we are known as the nation's largest animal protection organization, with 10 regional offices throughout the United States and more than 17 million members and constituents, I'm also here today on behalf of the Wildlife Refuge Reform Coalition, an organization comprised of more than 80 animal protection and environmental groups nationwide.

00:57:03.630 - 00:57:23.960

The principal goal of the coalition is to restore integrity to the management of the wildlife refuge system through meaningful refuge reform legislation. Senator Graham, As you know, the primary concern of those three million people that I represent here today is that your bill would allow sport hunting and commercial trapping to continue on refuges.

00:57:24.800 - 00:57:46.940

Indeed, it would actually designate hunting as one of the intended uses of refugees. However, if you and we truly wish to reform the refuge system in a way that would protect wildlife, we simply cannot avoid facing the hunting issue head on. This is not a question of hunting throughout the nation, but on wildlife refuges.

00:57:47.170 - 00:58:13.130

As you said in your opening statement, sir, the one set of areas in this country set aside for wildlife. Ostensibly, the goal of S 8 23 is the elimination of incompatible uses on refuges that need exists principally because the lack of the lack of ability and our political will of the Fish and Wildlife Service to stand up to the task and the lack of clarity and current and pertinent laws.

00:58:13.450 - 00:58:35.100

I think everyone here agrees on that. Consider you, if you will, that the 1989 g A O report entitled Wildlife refuges. Continuing problems with incompatible uses call for bold action rated waterfowl hunting the number one harmful public use allowed on refuges due to external pressures on the service.

00:58:35.920 - 00:59:02.040

Clearly, if the service needs help protecting refuge wildlife from anyone given area that area is sport hunting. Hunting the shooting of animals for pleasure of sport is under diet, undeniably a direct assault on refuge wildlife. Yet the system has denigrated to the point that it allows hunting of depleted species like black ducks and pin tails, even on refuges that are specifically created to benefit those.

00:59:03.020 - 00:59:22.440

This is the exact area where Congress must supply the Fish and Wildlife Service, with a backbone strong enough to withstand external pressure. And while the G A O report exposed hunting and trapping and many other harmful activities occurring on refuges, it is clear that it underestimated the extent of these active.

00:59:23.120 - 00:59:45.850

The report, indeed, was based on the opinions of refuge managers, many of whom have become accustomed to and tolerant of current management activities. Yet your bill, as a 23 still places the burden of deciding activity compatibility on refuge managers. While we applaud the fact that the bill addresses compatibility.

00:59:45.850 - 01:00:09.940

We are concerned that it still gives the Fish and Wildlife Service far too much room to be pushed around, as Don Barry said. In 1962 Congress passed the Refuge Recreation Act in 1966 Congress passed the Refuge Administration Act. In both cases. After lengthy debates, Congress left the agency with a mandate to ban activities which were quote incompatible.

01:00:10.500 - 01:00:34.430

Yet Congress provided no definition of compatibility, as the extent of harmful activities currently taking place on refuge is proves this discretion. The discretion determine compatibility is just too much for an agency like the Fish and Wildlife Service. Many fish and wildlife managers themselves are hunters and thus tend to accept recreational killing, even on refuges.

01:00:35.510 - 01:01:02.440

Therefore, when they are faced with local pressure and no statutory mandate, they tend to succumb to the pressure and declare hunting programs for their refuges to be compatible. But it does not stop there. If your refuge managers allow visitors to shoot and kill wildlife, how can they justify coming out against farming or pesticide spraying or any other harmful activities that have a less direct negative effect on wildlife?

01:01:03.510 - 01:01:35.530

In the end, it must be apparent that a refuge compatibility standard, which is so access to permit commercial trapping even of depleted species, will never be strong enough to prohibit other, less immediately destructive activities. Mr. Chairman, it is the view of the Humane Society of the United States and the more than 80 organizations in the Wildlife Refuge Reform Coalition that legislation aimed at strengthening the refuge system against the kind of abuses that threaten today must do two things.

01:01:36.010 - 01:01:54.230

You must ensure that activities permitted on refuges are either beneficial to our neutral in their direct impacts on wildlife and ensure that any necessary wildlife management program with direct effects on wildlife is carried out in the most humane manner possible. But that Mr Chairman, I thank you.

01:01:54.230 - 01:02:17.020

I look forward to working with you and your staff to achieve acceptable legislation. We think any public utility for the purpose of determining a just and reasonable rate under section A one we're both headed for the just and reasonable rates standard. But we thought a little, uh, further clarification, uh, would be appropriate.

01:02:17.500 - 01:02:33.590

Chairman, do you for just a clarification on that point, Madam Chairman, are you talking you're talking about? Are you talking about affiliate sales now? Yes. Okay, well, we'll be glad to. I'm sure to show for this new subcommittee. We're very, very pleased, obviously, to have you in the chairman's, too.

01:02:33.600 - 01:02:53.620

Thank you. Enactment of your legislation will represent a watershed in the history of the refuge system that will both alleviate widespread, harmful and incompatible refugees is and make fundamental structural improvements in the administration of the system. The legislation will enable the National Wildlife Refuge system to plan and implement consistent policies to guide the future of our refugees.

01:02:54.200 - 01:03:19.730

We've already submitted extensive written remarks which are on behalf of defenders, the Sierra Club NRDC. So I'll use my time not to review the testimony, but to make a few observations that occurred to me as I reviewed last year's hearing on on the legislation. I'm very pleased to see and to say that there's a heck of a difference in tone, uh, in the hearings, Uh, this year, compared to last year, it shows you what a difference a year can make, plus some other changes.

01:03:20.400 - 01:03:40.950

Um, Mr Chairman, uh, I would like to request that the report of the Commission of New Directions for the National Wildlife Refuge system. It's a commission sponsored by defenders be included in the hearing record shall be included as well, as will the full statement of all of the witnesses today and any additional papers that you would like to.

01:03:40.950 - 01:04:06.810

Smith has indicated earlier. The record will stay open until June 30th. Four submissions. I'm sorry, Doctor Mr Chairman, Reviewing last year's hearing on similar legislation, I was struck by peculiarities in the debate. Uh, that seemed almost unique to this legislation. First, I marveled that when it comes to the issue of reform of the refuge system, the large volume of uniformly pro reform studies were being casually dismissed by those who opposed the bill.

01:04:07.290 - 01:04:29.310

Last count. I think there was something like 20 I think, Bill said there was more than 20 at this point. Studies and reports prepared by either the Fish and Wildlife Service, the G A O or the non profit community, the G A O, which is usually looked to by Congress for impartial analyses and recommendations, studied the refuge system on several occasions and has consistently concluded that bold corrective reforms are needed.

01:04:29.790 - 01:04:44.560

The Fish and Wildlife Service itself, responding to the latest G A O report concluded there were serious problems and called for a number of legislative fixes. The report by the Commission on New Directions called for an organic act containing many of the same provision in S a 23.

01:04:45.390 - 01:05:04.720

On the other hand, there was not one government, congressional or private sector study that disputed these analyses and recommendations. At last year's hearing, there was much made over the wisdom of waiting for one particular government report. Refugees 2003, former director of the service, promised this committee one year ago.

01:05:04.780 - 01:05:39.720

The Refuges 2003 would provide an exciting roadmap into the next century. Now, refugees 2003 has arrived, and in our opinion, it's a tortured product of a career staff whose hearts weren't really in producing a report whose conclusions were politically dictated from above. I point out that one bit of evidence of the politicization of the report is that in the initial list of alternative options released by the service in November, 91 was the option of an acting organic legislation notwithstanding extensive support for organic legislation, it was not even identified as an option in refugees 2000 and three.

01:05:40.390 - 01:06:05.580

Moreover, the reports proposed action fails to identify the need for any new authorities from Congress, notwithstanding the Fish and Wildlife Service's own report on this following the G A O report. I think this may be what what Don Barry was alluding to when he made some reference to the fact that there was some extensive changes that needed to be made in the report, and he referred to the fact that it was not considering all of the options.

01:06:05.580 - 01:06:31.000

And some people have criticized further. There are no numerous. There are numerous unjustified assumptions and inconsistencies in the report, which call into question nearly all of the report's conclusions. In our estimation, is hard for us to conclude that those inconsistencies and assumptions, and not intended to make the ecosystem management alternative appear undesirable in comparison to the services pre selected proposed action alternative.

01:06:32.180 - 01:06:52.130

Another argument made last year was that management of the refuge system require such great flexibility that the Congress should not provide even a statement of purpose, did not require responsible planning, should not require rational procedure for determining compatibility, and should not require that other federal agencies consult before undertaking activities which damaged refuge wildlife assets.

01:06:52.680 - 01:07:08.700

I can't think of another federal program where the Congress has agreed to any such freewheeling approach, leaving the administration important, important public programs to the total discretion of whatever administrations happens to have won the last national election is not the Congress's style and is not in the public interest.

01:07:09.380 - 01:07:33.450

John Turner himself acknowledged that he found it inexplicable that his predecessor had eliminated the services requirements that refugees plan. That is exactly the kind of mischief that the current situation allows, where the refuge system being established from scratch. Today, it's inconceivable to me that the Congress would not insist that the enabling legislation include exactly the kind of provisions and s a 23.

01:07:33.460 - 01:07:47.910

It doesn't make sense to me that that argument that they should not do so should should hold sway just because we've been making an error for all these years. Another argument against this legislation was that we shouldn't enacted because we can't can't solve each and every problem.

01:07:48.480 - 01:08:00.980

There's no disagreement with the claim that will help the problem. But the argument was that since it can't fully solve each and every aspect of every problem, then we should do nothing again. That's an argument that was being applied uniquely, it seemed to the problems of refuge.

01:08:00.980 - 01:08:23.290

Wildlife conservation. Thank goodness it isn't applied to federal programs to combat poverty, unemployment, childhood nutrition and crime. Legislation in those areas do not solve all the problems. But no one would suggest that the cognitive should not do what it can to make things better. Finally, I note that just last Friday, the US signed the International Convention on Biological Diversity.

01:08:23.840 - 01:08:50.420

I'm pleased to note that the chairman and ranking member of the full committee called for the US to sign that agreement. At the signing, the U. S government promised to lead by example in implementing the treaty, and it gave us an example the priority emphasis. It will place an ecosystem management refugees 2003, you will recall, concluded that the ecosystem management option for our refuge is arguably the perhaps the most important lands we have for preserving biodiversity.

01:08:50.430 - 01:09:08.100

Uh, was inappropriate, Mr. Chairman, Hopefully Now, with an administration more favorable to the prudent stewardship, that s 8 23 represents, we'll be able to move forward on this bill which is so vital to the conservation of this nation's federal wildlife habitat. Thank you. Thank you, Doctor.

01:09:09.770 - 01:09:29.600

We have been joined by we've completed the testimony by the members of the second panel. I would like to ask a few questions. Uh, and my intention would be to ask a general question, Uh, and any member of the panel who uh, would care to do so is encouraged to respond.

01:09:29.970 - 01:10:07.790

That encouragement also includes a request for brevity in response so that we can get as much covered as possible. Um, Dr Grandi raised a very basic question relative to the issue of hunting. Uh, if this panel had been somewhat larger, we could have had people on who would have criticized the bill for not specifically sanctioning hunting in all cases, the legislation intends to leave that issue as with every other potential use, uh, subject to a case by case determination as to its compatibility.

01:10:08.260 - 01:10:29.570

Ah, Dr Grandi has suggested that that is inconsistent with the basic purpose of refuge and that there should be a system wide prohibition. I wonder if others have a communist. Whether they believe there any circumstances in which hunting could be found as compatible with the purposes of a wildlife refuge.

01:10:32.060 - 01:10:56.560

Yes, Doctor. Revolt, revolt like to add a couple of things. Um, it is, of course, true that the position of the Humane Society of the United States is against recreational hunting. But it is certainly, we believe, a greater affront to the lands of this nation if those lands are supposed to be used to benefit wildlife.

01:10:56.660 - 01:11:19.000

That's the situation that we deal with here principally. When I hear my colleagues, all of whom are friends on this panel discussing the question of hunting, they immediately hide behind this few cases in the system where we use it for management and Senator change his own area of New England.

01:11:19.000 - 01:11:52.280

We have okay situations where black ducks, which are seriously depleted species, are hunted on the national wildlife refuges in that region. We can deal with the question, I believe, as a practical matter of management kind of situations. If those situations where hunting is allowed are done as a last resort, what we can do and what the 80 organizations I represent here today can't acknowledge or accept is the idea of killing animals solely for sport on refuge.

01:11:52.660 - 01:12:09.220

Thank you, sir. My time has expired. It better or for worse, know quite a lot about it. Um, the question is, if we use your analogy, you said if the black Ducks in bad enough shape, we ought to stop it from being hunted at all. I would certainly agree with that.

01:12:09.230 - 01:12:48.300

May well be I mean, you know, you'd have to get your of course in on it. Is it is it a play for black ducks in New England to the same test, um, as we would all of the lands in New England? My suggestion is that as an area of most critical concern that areas where wildlife is not being hunted for management purposes are killed for management purposes as a last resort, then we ought to look very, very carefully at the whole issue of whether it's appropriate to kill black ducks, for example, for fun on wildlife refuges.

01:12:48.310 - 01:13:35.080

And I think that's that's a That's the crux of the matter. Here. I hear what you're saying in terms of the compromises that need to be made and certainly the positions that we've taken recognize those Thank you, Mr Fault. You wouldn't argue with. Thank you, Senator A an issue that was very controversial two years ago was the question of whether any additional legislation was required or whether the 19 sixties legislation, uh, properly administered and with adequate resources, uh, could achieve the purposes of the National Wildlife Refuge system.

01:13:35.550 - 01:14:03.770

Again, I would appreciate your brief comments as to whether you believe that there is the need for congressional action on this area or whether an enlightened administration can do it with an existing law. The people, um, the 21 major and I underline the word major reports that have been put forth on the National Wildlife Refuge system since 1968.

01:14:04.340 - 01:14:20.890

There are a number of other lesser reports, and they would add up to perhaps as many as another 10 or 12. And as has been pointed out here on the panel by Roger, no one has ever stepped forward and put out a substantial report refuting the findings of any of these reports.

01:14:21.440 - 01:14:38.510

They have consistently come out saying things are bad, things are getting worse, things are getting terrible. My gosh, and now we're down to bold action required and there has not been a reputation. I think that that I can tell you from my experience of being inside the administration.

01:14:39.040 - 01:15:02.690

Uh, when two of these major reports were issued 1968 report in the 1979 report in which Dr John Grandi participated and they attempt inside the administration was to to fix our own house, if you will, and bring it into order. And a major effort was undertaken within the refuge system to overcome the deficiencies that we've all talked about here and that have been in these reports.

01:15:03.340 - 01:15:24.950

It is not possible to do that. The statutory needs are paramount. We have to have a set of purposes for the system given to it by the Congress. We have to have some improvements in the way compatibility is conducted. We do need to have a consistent, ongoing planning process for the refuge system, and we can talk about the particulars on if any one of these things.

01:15:25.340 - 01:15:46.590

Then, Mr Chairman, we will have a strong, a powerful and a protective stewardship for our wildlife resources in this country. Mr. Chairman, just just one quick thing to follow up on that I think I think Bill's points entirely well taken. I I think it positively can't be done with that.

01:15:46.600 - 01:16:05.710

With that strong and definitive legislation, I only want to say that that I think, frankly, that the legislation may need to be stronger to get true reform in the refuge system than we would otherwise think necessary. And I say that not trying to support the position I've already taken.

01:16:05.710 - 01:16:27.350

But because with a whole variety of uses across the board and national wildlife refuges, we are faced with an agency that is now intellectually committed to finding them compatible, and all that's been happening for years on the refuge system. That's what's wrong with the 62 in the 66 acts.

01:16:27.930 - 01:16:52.990

Bill's absolutely right. If it could have been fixed by administrative action, it would have been It can't be chairman. I'd like to add just this second, Um, one of the provisions of the bill that's that's perhaps been overlooked by a number of people is that the bill would provide some affirmative stewardship responsibilities for the secretary of Interior for the refuge system, and that's that's a first.

01:16:52.990 - 01:17:10.790

It's something. The other agencies have requirements that their senior officials take care of their land programs. This is something that Mr Barry spoke to at great length this morning. On another point, the bill ensures that the refuge system will have a thorough and comprehensive planning process.

01:17:11.140 - 01:17:30.740

I wasn't too long ago. It was 1986. I believe that there was a directive out of the head of the Fish and Wildlife Service that all comprehensive master planning would cease and desist. That's the kind of administrative discrepancies and room for trouble making that that's in existing management of the refuge system.

01:17:30.740 - 01:18:06.900

That needs correction. And your bill just does just that. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Senator Chafee went out that indeed, one of our most of our major points is that this is an aberration among federal land systems and among federal programs. I commented that I cannot imagine if this subcommittee and especially the two senators sitting in front of me, we're creating a refuge system from scratch right now, they would posit that you would possibly tolerate the notion that that one should be created.

01:18:06.900 - 01:18:36.030

That has the flexibility for administration. Uh, for whoever comes into office that this one has. I can't imagine that you would do that. It isn't it isn't with. It is inconceivable to me that there would not be something as fundamental as a strong statement purpose. That there would be strong requirements for planning, that there would be a strong requirement for compatibility determination that there at least be a requirement that other federal agencies that were going to engage in activities that harm the nation's wildlife refuge assets engaged in some kind of consulting capacity.

01:18:36.420 - 01:19:08.850

Uh, you wouldn't tolerate it. It's just that it's exists. There's a certain momentum to the policy because it's their, uh that has put us in the circumstances. If you look at the other federal agencies and national park system, do we have a wildlife refuge system? Is the word system appropriately applied to this, uh, or do we have a series of 490 plus individual units, uh, which are semantically attached, but other than that are relatively autonomous.

01:19:09.220 - 01:19:35.240

Ah, and what should we have? And that, I think, goes to the question that, uh, Mr Peterson is raised and that is the appropriateness of making this investment in trying to arrive at systemic, uh, direction and purpose for these 490 units, as opposed to allowing them to go on an ad hoc manner.

01:19:35.620 - 01:20:03.050

Be interested in your comments as to why do we need to To begin to treat these, uh, 490 units, uh, as more of a of a whole, Uh, thank you, Mr Chairman, I'll jump off. Um, the answer to your question is yes, we have both. We have a lot of individual units within that 490 scattered around the United States and some of its territories.

01:20:03.510 - 01:20:29.320

But on the other hand, we have a system that was purchased and developed as a system throughout the course of 90 years. Now we have particularly a large number of refugees that were in an accelerated program up. The purchasing was done in the 19 thirties and 19 forties that were designed specifically, for instance, to take care of, uh, struggling waterfowl populations of that particular era.

01:20:29.710 - 01:20:51.690

Uh, and the acceleration at that time of, uh, the initial, uh, reduction of wetlands through drainage and conversion to agriculture. So we have a system that was, in fact, purchased in many cases to operate as a chain of refuges along north south flyways or migratory waterfowl and other migratory birds that rely on wetlands.

01:20:52.010 - 01:21:18.100

What we don't have, though, is a single plan, Uh, except with with very, very few exceptions where we have maybe two or three documents in total that deal with populations of waterfowl or some other game species. We don't have a plan that says how those refuges are supposed to work in consort to provide for these populations that make use of their habitats and other resources and things like farming programs.

01:21:18.110 - 01:21:40.340

Uh, things like wet soil management practices. Things like preparing a timing fashion to be prepared to handle a large influx of migratory birds and so forth are all elements of what could be put together in flyway wide plants. So, um, there's much more that could be done in linking the system as it exists.

01:21:40.350 - 01:22:35.280

There are always going to be individual refuges that that again, don't I? I don't disagree with Max Peterson. These are not islands out there. These are parts of local legal systems and so forth that do have to take into account local conditions. But nevertheless, the sofa, the Cabeza Prieta, uh, Sheldon's are large areas that, uh, take care of endemic populations, uh, that have the basic habitat necessary for those populations to live in a viable fashion, and and each of those needs to be planned In that context, Um, I think your bill provides for both, and I and I think that it it demonstrates its intent to keep the planning from becoming onerous by saying you can plan groups of refugees that are interrelated, uh, and and make that an easier than normal process than trying to do them individually.

01:22:35.290 - 01:22:58.520

But there are other refugees that maybe should desert and deserve to be planned individually. So I think your bill provides well for the eventualities that we put that we face. Let me ask a question which is intended to to sharpen the first question. And that is, are there some uhh deficiencies in the current refuge system?

01:22:58.530 - 01:23:23.020

Uh, which would appear by looking at national needs against the status quo. And let me just suggest one that has been brought to me as a deficiency. And that is that there has been, uh, inadequate attention to, uh, endangered splint, endangered plant species within the refuge system.

01:23:23.500 - 01:23:47.830

Ah, I would be in to sharpen the question of Do we need to have comprehensive planning? Are there, uh, in your judgment some deficiencies, which might be surfaced by a comprehensive plan and then overcome by having the administration present to Congress. Here are some things that we need to do in order to have a more of our biodiversity.

01:23:48.600 - 01:24:04.180

The National Wildlife Refuge system should have as one of its missions conservation of the natural diversity of this country. And if you you can review some of the data that the Fish and Wildlife Service has put together for refugees 2000 and three, it's new management plan.

01:24:04.380 - 01:24:23.850

And if you look beyond the few game species and the endangered and threatened animal and plant species, you see there's not a lot of attention played to the rest of the story. For example, only 20% of the nation's refugees have inventory their fish species. 18% of the refugees have inventoried.

01:24:23.850 - 01:24:45.370

They're amphibians. Less than 5% of the national wildlife refuges have conducted inventories of their invertebrate species. Only 17% of the refugees reported that they were incorporated into state natural heritage programs. So we've got a great opportunity with the National Wildlife Refuge system to make significant contributions to the protection of biodiversity.

01:24:45.470 - 01:25:07.460

But we aren't even looking to see what's there right now. And we think the direction provided in this legislation would take us significantly towards that goal. Mr. Chairman, if I might like to refer the subcommittee to the report of the Commission on New Directions for the National Wildlife System, you asked where this all takes us.

01:25:07.470 - 01:25:25.020

In that report, I think you'll find, besides, uh, a discussion of the problems of the current refuge system, a discussion of exactly where that takes us. I think in the long run where this is going to take us in, your bill is a necessary first step is to some kind of a national system of wildlife habitat lands.

01:25:25.130 - 01:25:47.800

It's probably going to be impossible for us and for the subcommittee and the Congress to avoid that in the long range future. Uh, Senator Kempthorne, when he was here, talked about the best available science guiding what we do with the best available science is telling us that we've got a tremendous problem in the loss of biological diversity around the world, although the public is a little aware of it and public policy doesn't recognize it much.

01:25:48.190 - 01:26:07.990

Uh, there was a report that I'll remind you of back in September 1990 by the Blue Ribbon Science Advisory Board to the Environmental Protection Agency. And it pointed out that said that there was unanimous, amazing scientific consensus around the world about what the four major threats to the global environment and to human welfare are in this world.

01:26:08.480 - 01:26:24.820

They list loss of species and biological diversity, loss of natural habitat, global warming and ozone depletion. Most people are aware of these other two, but they aren't aware of the importance of species and habitat loss and the loss of biological diversity, the best available science and senator kept.

01:26:24.820 - 01:26:42.600

Thorn referred to it as telling us exactly that where this bill begins to take us to a position where we can put together. The only thing that really has an opportunity to save by natural diversity in this country ultimately is a national system of habitat lands, and the core of it's certainly going to have to be the refuge system.

01:26:44.180 - 01:27:18.600

If I could inject a current situation which I think dramatically illustrates the issue of biodiversity, it happens to be occurring inside a national park. Uh, throughout most of its natural history, Florida Bay has been what it was described as a marine estuary. Um, part of that was a function of its salinity, which was roughly two thirds of the salinity level of ocean water.

01:27:19.680 - 01:27:43.710

In the recent years, there has been an increase in that salinity level. During its natural period, there was a diversity of sea grasses in Florida Bay. Many species existed, compatible as the salinity level increased. And now it has reached in some places, twice the salinity level of seawater.

01:27:44.280 - 01:28:14.340

The effect was to eliminate all but one of the sea grasses, which was called turtle grass, giving a false appearance of health. It's a very robust, uh, fast growing, healthy looking, uh, seagrass. But when salinity levels pat now are almost 2.5 times the ocean water, even the turtle grass couldn't survive, and it all collapsed at once.

01:28:15.310 - 01:29:01.780

And the consequence has been a tremendous environmental disaster In that area. Tens of thousands of acres of productive seagrass or lost, uh, what had been a beautiful, uh, bottom areas are now covered by an algae bloom, which has gotten up 2 to 300,000 acres, and the core problem, which started with the increased salinity level, Uh, was the fact that the biodiversity was lost, and therefore the whole system became subject to one event which wiped out what was left of the now single species?

01:29:02.270 - 01:29:39.130

Uh huh. I inject that as a as an example that this concept of biodiversity is not something this esoteric. It's something which is affecting the recreational and commercial uses of that water body the, uh, core of the economy of about 100,000 people who live in the Florida Keys, which is the quality of water and I think is a harbinger of how losses of of the diversity of our biological systems are going to start to have very dramatic impacts on mankind.

01:29:39.130 - 01:30:10.880

And I appreciate your suggestion of the the importance of giving that issue greater attention. Going to take a lot of the subcommittee time in the You're listening pick. Let me ask you, uh, one final question that goes back. Uh uh huh, uh, many years of service to the nation on behalf of the protection and expansion of our ability to conserve the natural resources of our nation.

01:30:11.360 - 01:30:46.520

Uh, I thank you and look forward to continuing to draw on your talents. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Congratulations on achieving the chairmanship of this new subcommittee. We're very, very pleased obviously, to have you and the chairman, Steve. Thank you. Enactment of your legislation will represent a watershed in the history of the refuge system that will both alleviate widespread, harmful and incompatible refugees is and make fundamental structural improvements in the administration of the system.

01:30:46.870 - 01:31:08.590

The legislation will enable the National Wildlife Refuge system to plan and implement consistent policies to guide the future of our refugees. We've already submitted extensive written remarks which are on behalf of defenders, the Sierra Club in n. R. D. C. So I'll use my time not to review the testimony, but to make a few observations that occurred to me as I reviewed last year's hearing on on the legislation.

01:31:08.720 - 01:31:28.100

I'm very pleased to see and to say that there's a heck of a difference in tone in the hearings this year compared to last year. Shows you what a difference. See, a year can make plus some other changes. Um, Mr Chairman, uh, I would like to request that the report of the Commission of New Directions for the National wildlife Refuge system.

01:31:28.100 - 01:31:44.770

It's a commission sponsored by defenders. Included in the hearing record shall be included as well, as will the full statement of all of the witnesses today and any additional papers that you would like to submit, as indicated earlier. The record will stay open until June 30th.

01:31:44.770 - 01:32:06.670

Four submissions. I'm sorry, Doctor Mr Chairman, Reviewing last year's hearing on similar legislation, I was struck by peculiarities in the debate. Uh, that seemed almost unique to this legislation. First, I marvel that when it comes to the issue of reform of the refuge system, the large volume of uniformly pro reform studies were being casually dismissed by those who oppose the bill.

01:32:07.150 - 01:32:29.170

Last count. I think there was something like 20 I think, Bill said. There was more than 20 at this point. Studies and reports prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service, the G A O, or the nonprofit community, the G A O, which is usually looked to by Congress for impartial analyses and recommendations, studied the refuge system on several occasions and has consistently concluded that bold corrective reforms are needed.

01:32:29.650 - 01:32:43.510

The Fish and Wildlife Service itself, responding to the latest G a O report concluded there were serious problems and called for a number of legislative fixes. The report by the Commission on New Directions called for an organic act containing many of the same provision in S.

01:32:43.510 - 01:33:04.570

A 23. On the other hand, there was not one government, congressional or private sector study that disputed these analyses and recommendations. At last year's hearing, there was much made over the wisdom of waiting for one particular government report. Refugees 2003, former director of the service, promised this committee one year ago.

01:33:04.650 - 01:33:32.260

The Refuges 2003 would provide an exciting roadmap into the next century. Now, refugees 2003 has arrived, and in our opinion, it's a tortured product of a career staff whose hearts weren't really in producing a report whose conclusions were politically dictated from above. I point out that one bit of evidence of the politicization of the report is that the initial list of alternative options released by the service in November 91 was the option of an acting organic legislation.

01:33:32.750 - 01:33:50.370

Notwithstanding extensive support for organic legislation, it was not even identified as an option in refugees 2003. Moreover, the reports proposed action fails to identify the need for any new authorities from Congress, notwithstanding the Fish and Wildlife Service's own report on this following the G A O report.

01:33:51.350 - 01:34:05.440

I think this may be what what Don Barry was alluding to when he made some reference to the fact that there was some extensive changes that needed to be made in the report, and he referred to the fact that it was not considering all of the options.

01:34:05.440 - 01:34:30.870

And some people have criticized further. There are no numerous. There are numerous unjustified assumptions and inconsistencies in the report, which call into question nearly all of the report's conclusions. In our estimation, is hard for us to conclude that those inconsistencies and assumptions, and not intended to make the ecosystem management alternative appear undesirable in comparison to the services pre selected proposed action alternative.

01:34:32.140 - 01:34:52.000

Another argument made last year was that management of the refuge system require such great flexibility that the Congress should not provide even a statement of purpose, did not require responsible planning, should not require rational procedure for determining compatibility, and should not require that other federal agencies consult before undertaking activities which damaged refuge wildlife assets.

01:34:52.540 - 01:35:08.560

I can't think of another federal program where the Congress has agreed to any such free, willing approach, leaving the administration important, important public programs to the total discretion of whatever administrations happens to have won the last national election is not the Congress's style and is not in the public interest.

01:35:09.240 - 01:35:33.320

John Turner himself acknowledged that he found it inexplicable that his predecessor had eliminated the services requirements that refugees plan. That is exactly the kind of mischief that the current situation allows, where the refuge system being established and scratch today, it's inconceivable to me that the Congress would not insist that the enabling legislation include exactly the kind of provisions and s a 23.

01:35:33.330 - 01:35:47.770

It doesn't make sense to me that that argument that they should not do so should should hold sway just because we've been making an error for all these years. Another argument against this legislation was that we shouldn't enacted because we can't can't solve each and every problem.

01:35:48.340 - 01:36:00.830

There's no disagreement with the claim that will help the problem, But the argument was that since it can't fully solve each and every aspect of every problem, then we should do nothing again. That's an argument that was being applied. Uniquely, it seemed to the problems of refuge.

01:36:00.830 - 01:36:23.150

Wildlife conservation. Thank goodness it isn't applied to federal programs to combat poverty, unemployment, childhood nutrition and crime. Legislation in those areas do not solve all the problems. But no one would suggest that the Congress should not do what it can to make things better. Finally, I note that just last Friday, the US signed the International Convention on Biological Diversity.

01:36:23.630 - 01:36:50.260

I'm pleased to note that the chairman and ranking member of the full committee called for the US to sign that agreement. At the signing, the U. S government promised lead by example in implementing the treaty, and it gave as an example the priority emphasis it will place on ecosystem management refugees 2003, you will recall, concluded that the ecosystem management option for our refuge is arguably the perhaps the most important lands we have for preserving biodiversity.

01:36:50.270 - 01:37:16.750

Uh, was inappropriate, Mr Chairman, Hopefully Now, with an administration more favorable to the prudent stewardship, that s a 23 represents, we'll be able to move forward on this bill, which is so vital to the conservation of this nation's federal wildlife habitat. Thanks. Thank you, Doctor. We have been joined by we've completed the testimony by the members of the second panel.

01:37:16.880 - 01:37:37.650

I would like to ask a few questions. Uh, and my intention would be to ask a general question. Uh, and any member of the panel who would care to do so is encouraged to respond. That encouragement also includes a request for brevity in response so that we can get as much covered as possible.

01:37:38.430 - 01:38:07.650

Um, Dr Grandi raised a very basic question relative to the issue of hunting. Uh, if this panel had been somewhat larger, we could have had people on who would have criticized the bill for not specifically sanctioning hunting. In all cases, the legislation intends to leave that issue as with every other potential use, uh, subject to a case by case determination as to its compatibility.

01:38:08.020 - 01:38:29.430

Uh, Dr Grandi has suggested that that is inconsistent with the basic purpose of refuge and that there should be a system wide prohibition. I wonder if others have a communist, Whether they believe there any circumstances in which hunting could be found as compatible with the purposes of a wildlife refuge.

01:38:31.920 - 01:38:56.400

Yes, Doctor. Revolt revolt like to add a couple of things. Um, it is, of course, true that the position of the Humane Society of the United States is against recreational hunting. But it is certainly, we believe, a greater affront to the lands of this nation if those lands are supposed to be used to benefit wildlife.

01:38:56.510 - 01:39:18.850

That's the situation that we deal with here principally. When I hear my colleagues, all of whom are friends on this panel discussing the question of hunting, they immediately hide behind this few cases in the system where we use it for management and Senator Chafee Zone area of New England.

01:39:18.850 - 01:39:52.140

We have okay situations where black ducks, which are seriously depleted species, are hunted on the national wildlife refuges in that region. We can deal with the question, I believe, as a practical matter of management kind of situations. If those situations where hunting is allowed are done as a last resort, what we can't do and what the 80 organizations I represent here today can't acknowledge or accept is the idea of killing animals solely for sport on refugees.

01:39:52.520 - 01:40:07.630

Thank you, sir. My time has expired. It better or for worse, know quite a lot about it. Um, I do. The question is, if we use your analogy, you said if the black Ducks in bad enough shape, we ought to stop it from being hunted at all.

01:40:07.640 - 01:40:23.730

I would certainly agree with that. May well be I mean, you know, you'd have to get your of course in on it. Is it is it a play for black ducks in New England to the same test, um, as we would all other lands in New England?

01:40:24.110 - 01:40:48.150

My suggestion is that as an area of most critical concern, but areas where wildlife is not being hunted for management purposes are killed for management purposes as a last resort, then we ought to look very, very carefully at the whole issue of whether it's appropriate to kill black ducks, for example, for fun on wildlife refuges.

01:40:48.160 - 01:41:04.620

And I think that's that's a That's the crux of the matter. Here. I hear what you're saying in terms of the compromises that need to be made and certainly the positions that we've taken recognize those Thank you, Mr Fault. You wouldn't argue with. Thank you, Senator.

01:41:10.410 - 01:41:50.620

A an issue that was very controversial two years ago. was the question of whether any additional legislation was required or whether the 19 sixties legislation, uh, properly administered and with adequate resources, uh, could achieve the purposes of the National Wildlife Refuge system. Again, I would appreciate your brief comments as to whether you believe that there is the need for congressional action on this area or whether an enlightened administration can do it within existing law.

01:41:53.210 - 01:42:20.750

Um, the 21 major and I underline the word major reports that have been put forth on the National Wildlife Refuge system since 1968. There are a number of other lesser reports, and they would add up to perhaps as many as another 10 or 12. And as has been pointed out here on the panel by Roger, no one has ever stepped forward and put out a substantial report refuting the findings of any of these reports.

01:42:21.300 - 01:43:04.810

They have consistently come out saying things are bad. Things are getting worse, things are getting terrible. My gosh, and now we're down to bold action required, and there has not been a reputation. I think that that I can tell you from my experience of being inside the administration uh when two of these major reports were issued in 1968 report in the 1979 report in which Dr John Grandi participated and they attempt inside the administration was to to fix our own house, if you will, and bring it into order, and and a major effort was undertaken within the refuge system to overcome the deficiencies that we've all talked about here and there have been in these reports, it is not possible to do that.

01:43:04.820 - 01:43:24.800

The statutory needs are paramount. We have to have a set of purposes for the system given to it by the Congress. We have to have some improvements in the way compatibility is conducted. We do need to have a consistent, ongoing planning process for the refuge system, and we can talk about the particulars on if any one of these things.

01:43:25.200 - 01:43:46.450

Then, Mr Chairman, we will have a strong, a powerful and a protective stewardship for our wildlife resources in this country. Mr. Chairman, just just one quick thing to follow up on that I think I think Bill's points entirely well taken. I I think it positively can't be done with that.

01:43:46.460 - 01:44:05.550

With that strong and definitive legislation. I only want to say that that I think, frankly, that the legislation may need to be stronger to get true reform in the refuge system than we would otherwise think necessary. And I say that not trying to support the position I've already taken.

01:44:05.550 - 01:44:27.200

But because with a whole variety of uses across the board and national wildlife refuges, we are faced with an agency that is now intellectually committed to finding them compatible and all that's been happening for years on the refuge system. That's what's wrong with the 62 in the 66 acts.

01:44:27.790 - 01:44:52.830

Bill's absolutely right. If it could have been fixed by administrative action, it would have been It can't be chairman. I'd like to add just this second, Um, one of the provisions of the bill that's that's perhaps been overlooked by a number of people is that the bill would provide some affirmative stewardship responsibilities for the secretary of Interior for the refuge system, and that's that's a first.

01:44:52.830 - 01:45:10.630

It's something. The other agencies have requirements that their senior officials take care of their land programs. This is something that Mr Barry spoke to at great length this morning. On another point, the bill ensures that the refuge system will have a thorough and comprehensive planning process.

01:45:10.970 - 01:45:30.590

I wasn't too long ago. It was 1986. I believe that there was a directive out of the head of the Fish and Wildlife Service that all comprehensive master planning would cease and desist. That's the kind of administrative discrepancies and room for trouble making that that's in existing management of the refuge system.

01:45:30.590 - 01:45:52.410

That needs correction. And your bill just does just that. Chairman. Yes, Senator Chafee went out, but indeed one of them, most of our major one of our most of our of major points is that this is an aberration among federal land systems and among federal programs.

01:45:52.790 - 01:46:11.830

I commented that I cannot imagine if this subcommittee and especially the two senators sitting in front of me, we're creating a refuge system from scratch right now, they would posit that you would possibly tolerate the notion that that one should be created. That has the flexibility for administration.

01:46:11.840 - 01:46:38.400

Uh, for whoever comes into office that this one has. I can't imagine that you would do that. It isn't it isn't with. It is inconceivable to me that there would not be something as fundamental as a strong statement. Purpose, uh, that there would be strong requirements for planning, uh, that there would be a strong, uh, requirement for compatibility determination, uh, that there at least be a requirement that other federal agencies that were gonna engage in activities that harm the nation's wildlife refuge assets engage in some kind of consulting capacity.

01:46:38.880 - 01:47:11.270

Uh, you wouldn't tolerate it. It's just that it exists. There's a certain momentum to the policy because it's their, uh that has put us in the circumstances. If you look at the other federal agencies and national park system, do we have a wildlife refuge system? Is the word system appropriately applied to this, uh, or do we have a series of 490 plus individual units which are semantically attached, but other than that are relatively autonomous.

01:47:11.680 - 01:47:37.600

Ah, and what should we have? And that, I think, goes to the question that, uh, Mr Peterson is is raised. And that is the appropriateness of making this investment in trying to arrive at systemic, uh, direction and purpose for these 490 units, as opposed to allowing them to go on an ad hoc manner.

01:47:38.080 - 01:48:05.500

Be interested in your comments as to why do we need to To begin to treat these, uh, 490 units, uh, as more of a of a whole, Uh, thank you, Mr Chairman, I'll jump off. The answer to your question is yes, we have both. We have a lot of individual units within that 490 scattered around the United States and some of its territories.

01:48:05.970 - 01:48:31.780

But on the other hand, we have a system that was purchased and developed as a system throughout the course of 90 years. Now we have particularly a large number of refugees that were in an accelerated program. Uh, the purchasing was done in the 19 thirties and 19 forties that were designed specifically, for instance, to take care of, uh, struggling waterfowl populations of that particular era.

01:48:32.170 - 01:48:54.130

Uh, and the acceleration at that time of, uh, the initial, uh, reduction of wetlands through drainage and conversion to agriculture. So we have a system that was, in fact, purchased in many cases to operate as a chain of refuges along north south flyways or migratory waterfowl and other migratory birds that rely on wetlands.

01:48:54.470 - 01:49:35.800

What we don't have, though, is a single plan, Uh, except with with very, very few exceptions where we have maybe two or three documents in total that deal with populations of waterfowl or some other game species. We don't have a plan that says how those refugees are supposed to work in consort to provide for these populations that make use of their habitats and other resources and things like farming programs, things like wet soil management practices, things like preparing a timing fashion to be prepared to handle a large influx of migratory birds and so forth are all elements of what could be put together in flyway wide plants.

01:49:35.970 - 01:49:59.610

So, um, there's much more that could be done in linking the system as it exists. There are always going to be individual refuges that that again, I don't I I don't disagree with Max Peterson. These are not islands out there. These are parts of local legal systems and so forth that do have to take into account local conditions.

01:49:59.610 - 01:50:37.730

But nevertheless, the sofa, the Cabeza Prieta uh, the Sheldon's are large areas that, uh, take care of endemic populations, uh, that have the basic habitat necessary for those populations to live in a viable fashion, and and each of those needs to be planned In that context, Um, I think your bill provides for both, and I think that it it demonstrates its intent to keep the planning from becoming onerous by saying you can plan groups of refugees that are interrelated, uh, and and make that an easier than normal process than trying to do them individually.

01:50:37.740 - 01:51:08.160

But there are other refugees that maybe should desert and deserve to be planned individually. So I think your bill provides well for the eventualities that we put that we face. Let me ask a question which is intended to to sharpen the first question. And that is, are there some, uh, deficiencies in the current refuge system, which would appear by looking at national needs against the status quo.

01:51:08.160 - 01:51:33.250

And let me just suggest one that has been brought to me as a deficiency. And that is that there has been, uh, inadequate attention to, uh, endangered splint, endangered plant species within the refuge system. Uh, I would be to sharpen the question of Do we need to have comprehensive planning?

01:51:33.260 - 01:51:49.380

Are there, uh, in your judgment, Some deficiencies which might be surfaced by a comprehensive plan and then overcome by having the administration present to Congress. Here are some things that we need to do in order to have a more.